On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 11:56:12AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.06.2023 11:17, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 05:30:02PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> To avoid the need for a forward declaration of pit_load_count() in a
> >> subsequent change, move it earlier in the file (along with its helper
> >> callback).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Just a couple of nits, which you might also noticed but decided to not
> > fix given this is just code movement.
>
> Indeed, I meant this to be pure code movement. Nevertheless I'd be happy
> to take care of style issues, if that's deemed okay in a "pure code
> movement" patch. However, ...
It's just small style issues, so it would be OK for me.
> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/emul-i8254.c
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/emul-i8254.c
> >> @@ -87,6 +87,57 @@ static int pit_get_count(PITState *pit,
> >> return counter;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static void cf_check pit_time_fired(struct vcpu *v, void *priv)
> >
> > Seems like v could be constified?
>
> ... the function being used as a callback, I doubt adding const would
> be possible. Otoh ...
Oh, I see.
> >> +{
> >> + uint64_t *count_load_time = priv;
>
> ... there's a blank line missing here, if I was to go for style
> adjustments.
Sure.
Thanks, Roger.
